Jan. 14 USA: Death Penalty: Deterrent Or Ineffective? In 2003 Governor Ryan of Illinois commuted the death sentences of all death row inmates in that state to life imprisonment or less. This act has once again spurred debate and controversy regarding the usefulness of the death penalty. Is the death penalty an effective way of deterring serious crime in this country? Proponents of the death penalty claim that the death penalty of course deters serious crime and that it also offers closure to victims families, providing them with an amount of "justice-served." This is a very difficult theory to prove. Statistics dont offer a clear picture into the causation of serious crimes. There are many variables. Does a man not murder someone because he is afraid of being put to death for his crime? No clear answers are swimming around in the vast sea of information found in libraries, courthouses, and websites. My guess is that the death penalty is the furthest thing from a murderers mind when he is murdering. But, that is just an amateurs guess. Opponents of the death penalty believe that the death penalty is an ethical question needing answered. Is it morally or ethically right to take a life, no matter whose life? In other words, we as a country have made it a law not to murder yet we will murder those who commit murder. Opponents of the death penalty see it as a circular argument. Critics also believe that the high reversal rate in Capital Punishment cases (65%) is good cause to stop the practice entirely [News Batch 2004]. The United States and Japan are the only modern societies remaining that continue to carry the death penalty, but it should be noted that handguns are generally prohibited in Japan, which I would imagine acts as a deterring fact within itself. Japan executes approximately 2 or 3 criminals a year. Does the fear of execution deter the murderer? It is a difficult question. If we look into the mind of a sociopath, we will see an individual that doesnt give a damn about the laws, and murders in the face of the system. The sociopath and/or psychopath generally have no conscious. They are not bridled by morality or ethics. There of course are those who kill in crimes of passion and those that kill as a way of winning acceptance from their friends. There are armed robbers that kill accidentally I suppose and there are criminals that are hearing voices and do what the voices tell them (thats another column). As a whole, I think Capital Punishment is at best ineffective and also costly. Crime rates are still high in this country, with or without the death penalty. It is an issue that more-than-likely will plague social thinkers and designers for a long time to come. (source: Useless Knowledge.com) ********************* High court justices hold rare public debate Shed of their black robes, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer engaged in a lively and, at times, amusing debate Thursday over whether foreign court rulings should be used in U.S. decisions. "We don't have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world, and we never have," said Scalia, who is one of the strongest voices on the high court against looking to foreign rulings to decide American cases. Breyer countered, "You can learn something" from foreign countries. He said it is a matter of "opening your eyes to things that are going on elsewhere." He said he does not consider foreign decisions "determinative" but "simply, from time to time, relevant." Sitting in upholstered chairs in the well of an American University auditorium, the two justices laid out their views in a rare public session. Their conversation was moderated by New York University law professor Norman Dorsen and co-sponsored by the U.S. Association of Constitutional Law and American University. Supreme Court justices increasingly have referred to foreign law but not without dissent in their own ranks or public controversy. In 2003, when the majority struck down state anti-sodomy laws, it mentioned that the European Court of Human Rights has affirmed the right of homosexual adults to engage in sexual conduct. A year earlier, when the majority barred the execution of mentally retarded convicts, it noted that "within the world community" such executions are "overwhelmingly disapproved." Some members of Congress have denounced such references. Last year, Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., introduced a resolution criticizing the court for citing foreign legal authority. The resolution drew several co-sponsors but was not adopted by the full House. Shannon Conklin, a spokeswoman for Feeney, said Thursday that he intends to reintroduce the resolution. Scalia and Breyer, both former law professors, appeared to relish expounding on their competing approaches. "I'm not preventing you from reading these cases," Scalia said, "just don't put it in your opinions." Scalia, who dissented from the gay rights and death penalty decisions, argued that the danger of foreign law is that it can be taken out of its native soil context or used only when it helps a position. "We are one of only six countries in the world that allows abortion on demand prior to viability," he said, noting that the Supreme Court majority has not been guided by that. "Do we just use foreign law selectively?" Scalia, who was appointed in 1986 by President Reagan, emphasized that judges should decide cases based solely on the U.S. Constitution and its 18th-century context. Breyer, who was named to the bench by President Clinton in 1994, argued that judges can draw guidance - not hard rules - from foreign sources. He observed that the Supreme Court increasingly is faced with international problems, from global antitrust disputes to terrorism. "Those are the cases we're getting. And that reflects the truth about the world." There were many moments of levity between the 2 justices during the hour-and-a-half session that also was broadcast by C-SPAN. Breyer quipped at one point that he usually goes about his life unrecognized. He said that the few times people have asked him if he was on the Supreme Court, they thought he was Justice David Souter. Chimed in Scalia, "And he went along with it!" (source: USA TODAY) NEBRASKA----new death sentence Convicted Bank Robber Gets Death Penalty The leader of a bank robbery attempt in which 5 people were killed was sentenced Friday to death in the electric chair. Jose Sandoval, 25, was convicted of killing 3 people and 3 partners of killing the other victims in the September 2002 attempt at a U.S. Bank branch in Norfolk. Surveillance tapes indicate 3 gunmen were in the bank for only 40 seconds, and no money was taken. The defense had asked for leniency because testimony indicated Sandoval had a difficult childhood, a personality disorder and was under the influence of LSD during the robbery attempt. A jury convicted Sandoval in November 2003 and found his crimes merited the death penalty. A 3-judge panel sentenced Sandoval after a hearing last month. The case will automatically be appealed. Sandoval, Jorge Galindo and a lookout, Gabriel Rodriguez, were each found guilty of five counts of 1st-degree murder for the killings of four bank employees and a customer. A 4th man, Erick Vela, pleaded guilty. The victims were assistant bank manager Lola Elwood, customer Evonne Tuttle and employees Jo Mausbach, Samuel Sun and Lisa Bryant. Galindo also received the death penalty. Rodgriguez, who is Sandoval's half brother, was sentenced to 5 consecutive life terms. Vela's sentence is still pending, and his lawyers are arguing he is mentally retarded and not eligible for execution. Nebraska is the only state with electrocution as its sole means of execution, and legislators have been considering switching to lethal injection. (source: Associated Press) MISSISSIPPI: Mississippi death row inmate's appeal before U.S. Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court is taking a closer look at the appeal of Mississippi inmate Stephen Elliot Powers, sentenced to death for the 1998 killing of a University of Southern Mississippi student. The justices were initially scheduled to discuss the case in conference next week. On Thursday, however, they asked for the full record of the Mississippi case. The court did not explain the request. Powers wants a new trial because he argues that attempted rape is not a felony that would support a capital murder charge or conviction. In Mississippi, capital murder is defined as murder committed along with the commission of another crime. The argument was rejected by Mississippi courts Now, Powers has asked the nation's high court to consider that issue. Powers was convicted in 2000 in Forrest County of murdering the 27-year-old Beth Lafferty, who was shot 5 times during an attack at her home, including 3 times in the back of her head. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld Powers' capital murder conviction and death sentence in 2003. According to the court record, Powers admitted in a written statement that he and Lafferty struggled with a gun and that he shot Lafferty, but he specifically denied having sex with the woman. The Mississippi Supreme Court, however, ruled the physical evidence clearly revealed that there was an attempt toward the commission of rape. The court said there as sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding. Mississippi Justice George C. Carlson wrote that photos from the crime scene showed the "sexually explicit position in which Lafferty's body was found." Carlson said that coupled with Powers' admission that he shot her and left her in the position in which she was found supported the attempted rape charge. The Mississippi court also rejected Powers' claims that his lawyer didn't do a good job. (source: Associated Press) KENTUCKY: Medical ethics issue dismissed----Foes of execution challenged Fletcher A panel that oversees the conduct of doctors in Kentucky yesterday decided that Gov. Ernie Fletcher did not violate medical ethics by ordering the execution of a death row inmate. With no public discussion, a state Medical Licensure Board committee unanimously agreed that Fletcher, a physician, did not violate guidelines that bar doctors from participating in executions. The committee, which examined the issue at the request of four death-penalty opponents, said Fletcher was acting as governor, not as a doctor, when he signed a Nov. 8 death warrant for Thomas Clyde Bowling. Bowling, convicted in the 1990 slayings of a Lexington couple, was scheduled for execution Nov. 30, but it was delayed by issues his lawyers have raised on appeal. Fletcher's office yesterday issued a statement from the governor, who was traveling in Western Kentucky: "I am pleased that the medical board panel unanimously ruled that my actions as Governor were unquestionably within our professional ethical standards." But medical ethics experts questioned whether a doctor who becomes a governor can separate his 2 roles. "I would hold the view that as long as he continues to call himself a physician, he's bound to the ethics of that position," said Dr. Clarence Braddock, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. Paul Lombardo, a law and medical ethics professor at the University of Virginia, said drafters of the AMA guidelines probably meant to ban physicians from activities such as administering drugs during an execution by injection. "I don't believe the medical association rules generated to stand in the way of physician participation in an execution really contemplated this situation," he said. But that doesn't mean the guidelines don't apply to a physician doing his job as governor, Lombardo said. "Ethics apply any time," he said. American Medical Association ethical guidelines say a physician should not participate in an execution. Kentucky's medical board has adopted those guidelines. Retired Louisville lawyer Carl Wedekind, one of the four who asked the licensure board to investigate, said he was disappointed the panel dismissed the matter so quickly and refused to allow him or others to speak. "We had come with the hope that the Medical Licensure Board would hear what we have to say and let us present our case to them," Wedekind said. The letter also was signed by Stuart Urbach and Steven Lippman, Louisville physicians, and by the Rev. Kathy Costanzo, University Hospital chaplain. The committee met in closed session for about 15 minutes before taking a public vote. Jon Fleischaker, a lawyer for The Courier-Journal, said that may have violated the state's Open Meetings law. Fleischaker wrote Dr. Preston Nunnelley, chairman of the eight-member inquiry panel, challenging the closed meeting and suggesting that the Medical Licensure Board void the panel's action. But Lloyd Vest, general counsel for the board, said members of its inquiry panels that conduct a preliminary review of allegations can hold closed meetings for certain matters under state law. Nunnelley said after the meeting that members discussed the matter involving Fletcher during the closed session but didn't take any action or reach a decision until they reopened the meeting to the public and voted. Wedekind questioned whether panel members who supported Fletcher and donated to his election campaign have a conflict. Campaign-spending reports show that three members gave money to Fletcher, including Nunnelley, who donated $1,000 to the campaign and $500 to the inauguration. Nunnelley, whom Fletcher just appointed to a fourth term on the licensure board, said the donations are not relevant and did not influence anyone's decision. "Most physicians either supported him or contributed in some way," Nunnelley said. Nunnelley, who as chairman did not vote, said he supports the conclusion of the other members. Death-penalty opponents said yesterday's decision won't end their efforts to persuade Fletcher to commute Bowling's sentence to life without parole. "We're not going to give up," said the Rev. Patrick Delahanty, chairman of the Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. (source: Courier-Journal) *********************** Medical board sides with governor A state medical oversight body decided yesterday that Gov. Ernie Fletcher was acting in his official capacity as governor and not as a doctor when he signed a death warrant for a death row inmate. It took the 7-person panel of the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure less than 10 minutes to dismiss a grievance which alleged that Fletcher violated state and American Medical Association ethics codes by signing the death warrant for Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr. in November. Fletcher, a family doctor, said in a written statement that he was pleased that the medical board "ruled that my actions as governor were unquestionably within our professional ethical standards." Fletcher frequently touted his medical training on the campaign trail. State medical ethics laws prohibit doctors from taking part in executions. A group of doctors and staff members from the University of Louisville Medical School filed a grievance with the state medical oversight body shortly after Fletcher signed the death warrant. Challenging Fletcher's decision to sign a death warrant because he is a doctor is one of the more unusual recent challenges to state-ordered executions, and the move has garnered national attention. Carl Wedekind, a retired lawyer who signed the grievance, said after the meeting that he strongly disagreed with the panel's decision. "It is unethical for a physician, regardless of his role, to kill someone," Wedekind said. The complaining group, two U of L doctors, a chaplain at U of L Hospital and Wedekind, asked that the inquiry board's deliberations be open to the public. But the licensure board denied the request, citing the open meetings law, which gives it authority to close meetings during deliberations. Wedekind and others said they wanted the meetings to be public because some people on the panel may have donated to Fletcher's campaign and others were appointed by Fletcher. There may be others who strongly supported the death penalty, Wedekind said. But Dr. Preston Nunnelley, chairman of the panel, dismissed questions about the impartiality of the board. Nunnelley and one other member, Dr. Linda Mumford, contributed to Fletcher's gubernatorial campaign, according to state campaign finance reports. Mumford gave $500, and Nunnelley contributed $1,000. As chairman, Nunnelley does not vote unless there is a tie. Nunnelley pointed out that if the board that met yesterday decided there was evidence that Fletcher violated ethics laws, another panel would have investigated the complaint. "It's actually a very fair process," the Lexington doctor said. Nunnelley also pointed out that many members, including him, were appointed or reappointed by previous Democratic governors. Moreover, the Kentucky Medical Association nominates 3 doctors to serve on the medical oversight body, and the governor then picks from those 3. "They don't look at contributions," Nunnelley said. (source: Herald-Leader)
